scf_list_risks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the most important behavioral trait (non-mutating). The description adds useful scope and return-field context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, access restrictions, or any side effects beyond what is already implied. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and this adds modest value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and resource, then compactly lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes scanning easy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward read-only list tool, the description covers what is listed, the scope, and the returned fields. The schema fills in parameter details, including org_id provenance. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the status filter, but those are visible in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents page, org_id, status, and per_page. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as clarifying status values or org_id semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'List risk assessments in the organization's risk register.' It also specifies return fields (likelihood, impact, treatment status, linked controls), which helps separate it from summary or matrix tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from scf_list_custom_risks or scf_get_risk, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'List' verb implies a browsing/collection use case, and the resource scope suggests this is the standard risk-register listing tool. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over scf_get_risk, scf_list_custom_risks, or scf_get_risk_summary. Usage context is only implicit, not clearly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.